4.7 Article

Regulatory T cell defect in APECED patients is associated with loss of naive FOXP3+ precursors and impaired activated population

期刊

JOURNAL OF AUTOIMMUNITY
卷 35, 期 4, 页码 351-357

出版社

ACADEMIC PRESS LTD- ELSEVIER SCIENCE LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.jaut.2010.07.008

关键词

Human; T cells; Autoimmunity; Regulatory T cells; Autoimmune polyendocrinopathy; candidiasis ectodermal dystrophy; AIRE

资金

  1. Academy of Finland
  2. Helsinki Biomedical Graduate School
  3. Finnish Diabetes Foundation
  4. Finnish Cultural Foundation
  5. Jalmari and Rauha Ahokas Foundation
  6. Finnish Foundation for Cardiovascular Research

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The pathogenetic mechanisms of organ-specific autoimmune diseases remain obscured by the complexity of the genetic and environmental factors participating in the breakdown of tolerance A unique opportunity to study the pathogenesis of human autoimmunity is provided by autoimmune polyendocrinopathy-candidiasis-ectodermal dystrophy (APECED) a rare inherited autoimmune disease caused by mutations in Autoimmune Regulator (AIRE) gene Loss of AIRE function disrupts the deletion of autoreactive T cells and impairs the suppressive function of regulatory T (Treg) cells Here we show by multiparameter flow cytometry that in healthy controls the peripheral naive Treg cell subset forms a slowly dividing persistent reservoir of recent thymic emigrants (RTEs) In APECED patients the RTE Treg cells show accelerated turnover and shift to the activated pool and the RTE reservoir is depleted Moreover the activated Treg cell population in the patients expresses significantly less Forkhead box protein P3 (FOXP3) than in the healthy controls consistent with the impairment of peripheral activation Our results indicate that in addition to their thymic effects loss-of-function mutations in AIRE disrupt the peripheral homeostasis and activation of Treg cells This may synergize with failed negative selection to cause APECED (c) 2010 Elsevier Ltd All rights reserved

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.7
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据